Net neutrality

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Can someone please explain this in two bullet points pro and con.

Thanks.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Anonymous 42]

Now it’s the wild wild west, service providers are not treated as common carriers like the abolished trucking rights.

They want to regulate the web common carrier style, sticking the large traffic generators like Netflix with the bill for their demand, likely making access cheaper or free to the user.

It will cost more, make s~~~loads of s~~~storm regulation and lower service quality, just like everything else the government ruins.

That’s my understanding, plus more censoring powers for the elites over the masses.

That’s my interpretation of the mess!

IT’S BAD!

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

I don’t have the answer, but here’s my rule of thumb – take any name they slap on the legislation – and invert it into its opposite – and you’ll get the real agenda behind it.
Examples:
Patriot Act – castrates bill of rights
Affordable Care Act – triples prices, imposes taxes and it’s not care, but management
Net Neutrality – probably some kind of totalitarian control over Internet and its censorship

Haven’t watched it yet, but RPP posted a video about it this morning

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Anonymous 2]

Net Neutrality means that all internet providers have to provide free, open access to the internet. It prohibits providers from slowing down your connection and blocking content.

If you want to get rid of net neutrality, you have to be a moron. Eliminating net neutrality laws would mean that your provider could now charge you more money, or slow dowm your connection if you refuse to pay the price hike. They can also block sites, or charge you more to get a package that allows you to access certain sites.

In other words, corporations that provide internet access want to convince the general public that net neutrality is bad, because then they can jack up prices on you in order for you to get a decent speed connection or not deal with pages being blocked. For pages like MGTOW.com that go against the grain, loss of net neutrality could be a death blow. That means any content that your corporate masters don’t want you having access to can be blacklisted by them, because they can now block whatever pages they want, or charge more for access to them.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Anonymous wrote:

Net Neutrality means that all internet providers have to provide free, open access to the internet

If you want to get rid of net neutrality, you have to be a moron.

I think I’ve heard this before somewhere – “Communism just means that all producers will have to provide goods for free and without a limit… You have to be a moron to reject communism”

US ISPs is overpriced dog s~~~. I pay $70 for Comcast 40Mbps, which doesn’t work without their modem, it won’t let me use torrents (connection timed out), they steal and distribute my Wi-Fi to their subscribers, and they have plans to convert their modems wi-fi hotspots to home cell towers for their own cell network.
My brother in Europe pays 7 euro per month for 1Gbps fiber without any limits and need to rent equipment.

Whatever can be done to promote competition, limit data mining and snooping, and keeping government away – I’m all for it. But I seriously doubt that’s what “Net Neutrality” legislation does or intends to do

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Anonymous 2]

Russky, if you want to allow providers to block content and charge you more to get a decent connection speed, then that’s your opinion. I prefer to keep the internet open, as it currently is, so that everybody can access any site they wish, without having to pay extra fees to the internet provider.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Anonymous wrote:

Russky, if you want to allow providers to block content and charge you more to get a decent connection speed, then that’s your opinion.

I never said that. They are already doing that. So what’t the plan?
If Net Neutrality legislation is something that’ll actually helps consumer and keeps ISPs at bay – I’m all for it.
But I very seriously doubt that is the case, but I don’t know much about it

There is absolutely no way that the Congress will actually enact something beneficial to consumers as long as bribery (aka lobbying) is still legal.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Russky wrote:

US ISPs is overpriced dog s~~~. I pay $70 for Comcast 40Mbps, which doesn’t work without their modem, it won’t let me use torrents (connection timed out), they steal and distribute my Wi-Fi to their subscribers, and they have plans to convert their modems wi-fi hotspots to home cell towers for their own cell network.

So basically the US ISP providers are greedy f~~~ers and will screw over their user any way they can. So can you guess what they’ll do if net neutrality goes away?

So, Comcast signs a deal with Netflix and AT&T signs one with Hulu. All of the sudden you can’t watch Hulu if Comcast is your service provider. Or you can, but they slow down the speed of Hulu downloads to the point where it is unusable. Want porn? That’s either a big fat no, or an extra $50 a month to watch “free” porn. You have a small start-up internet company and you go up against one of the big boys, say Amazon? Amazon makes one phone call to Comcast you suddenly your s~~~ doesn’t work. The big boys get bigger and the little guy gets screwed.

Sorry YouTube, but if you get rid of that MGTOW content we aren’t going to include you in our package.

If you like freedom you’re for net neutrality.

Order the good wine

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

I am for net neutrality, what I’m not for is “Net Neutrality” legislation.
I don’t trust the Government with anything.
Amazon is a small grass roots start up?? LOL. Bezos is a liberal CIA worth $100b

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[NerdTunnelerParticipant]

It is simply like this. A long time ago, radio and TV were free. You get some ads in the process. Without net neutrality, you have to pay for each show you wanted to watch. And they get to decide what shows you are allowed to watch.

In gaming terms. A long time ago when you buy a game, it is a full game that you own. Without net neutrality, it will go with the way of EA games that you buy (aka rent) that is delivered to you incomplete. To unlock all parts of the game you have to pay more money to continue using it or to enjoy its content.

For an automotive sense…Net neutrality is buying a car that you want and is complete and runs fine. Without net neutrality, manufacturers sell you the “rights” to a car. You get the basic Model T in 2018 for the price of a brand new Ford or Chevy car. Now you have to shell out more money for the dashboard, the fuel injection, seatbelt, airbags, comfy seats, doors, signal lights, wipers and other stuff that makes a modern car run. Plus, you dont own the car which you have poured money in. You only get to choose from the list that your provider gives you.

That is basically what is going to happen without net neutrality. Content and speed being regulated or throttled depending on the provider. Like TV nowadays, you have to pay HBO for Game of Thrones, CBS for Star Trek and a host of other channels to watch each and every website that you are enjoying.

I stand with feet apart and let my balls hang free...Manginas dont have balls...See how they stand and sit at the whim of their masters...

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

All of this is in theory – that’s what they tell us. I doubt any of you actually read the bill.
Remember the s~~~ they were saying about Obamacare? The theory was very different from what actually went in practice

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

Government regulation is the road to disaster. But what did we expect? The free transfer of ideas across borders?

That has always been tightly controlled by governments. I don’t know why the net would be any different.

Now it’s all about what side you find yourself on with the censors.

Based on the recent youtube purge is seems that MGTOW has a rep as woman haters. We frequently mock women and their choices. We show signs of glee at their physical injury’s and laugh when they get hit in a video or something. We say that she deserved the physical violence she received.

These are the reasons why they hate us and will definitely try to take us down.

It’ll be interesting. Government regulation of the net is a Trojan Horse.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

‘Net Neutrality’ is a 2010 FCC rule formally known as the Open Internet Order (OIO) https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf. Another 583 pages of government regulation — the most recent version approved during the Obama-nation Regime in 2015. More unconstitutional agency legislating (the Congress never voted on it; the FCC ‘promulgated’ it, i.e. its un-elected Commisar Commissioners voted on it, similar to ‘rulemaking’ barfed out by other Federal Agencies such as EPA).

Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc all support the regulation. Make them look good. They fear innovation and competition.

Before the FCC first implemented OIO, we had free access to the web.

One needs to only look back to the highly regulated telephony sector in the 1970’s; until MCI, Sprint, etc were allowed to carry long distance calls, rates were high, and innovation slow.

Nothing wrong with cable companies offering tiered service; let’s say some customers use Netflix a lot but otherwise use internet only for e-mail, maybe cable companies and other ISP’s can cater to that need instead of 3 or 4 one-size-fits all packages.

If you want more competition, the answer is FEWER regulations. The main regulations keeping costs high are municipalities and States preventing more competition. Where I live, AT&T had to LITIGATE to get approval for U-Verse. Whatever you think of U-Verse, it’s at least another alternative to C~~~-Cast, Specbum, etc.

And how can you say you ‘pay for each program you watch’? Before OIO was implemented, that is not at all what happened with streaming.

CBS’s decision to sell Star Trek/CBS all access as online-only in the US, has NOTHING to do with net neutrality. They made a business decision. As a consumer, I’d actually prefer NO CABLE and EVERYTHING purchased ala cart on a per program basis.

Complying with long, complicated regulations, often benefits entrenched players, and is a dis-incentive to innovation and more rules for small ISP’s to comply with, under Title II. Not all commissioners agree with the rule, for instance https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/videos/10152670407804117/

Like Russky, I’m for Net Neutrality, but not FCC mandated net neutrality rules. If my ISP blocks sites I use, I’ll switch to another one. Netflix isn’t afraid of weaker net neutrality; they’re so popular with users, ISPs would be unlikely to block them.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

^^
When I grow up I want to be like FrankOne

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Russky wrote:

Murph wrote:

Net Neutrality means that all internet providers have to provide free, open access to the internet

If you want to get rid of net neutrality, you have to be a moron.

US ISPs is overpriced dog s~~~. I pay $70 for Comcast 40Mbps, which doesn’t work without their modem, it won’t let me use torrents (connection timed out), they steal and distribute my Wi-Fi to their subscribers, and they have plans to convert their modems wi-fi hotspots to home cell towers for their own cell network.
My brother in Europe pays 7 euro per month for 1Gbps fiber without any limits and need to rent equipment.

Out of curiosity, how many ISP’s are available where you live? Where I live, there are 3, so the SOBs must compete. I can use my own modem too and save about $10/month. Typically, the more servicing a given area, the lower the rates and faster the speeds. I hope services like Webpass grow and force service improvements.

In many municipalities, the city literally gets a ‘piece of the action’. i.e. they agreed to allow C~~~-Cast (a.k.a. Comcast) to deploy a Monopoly cable service in their city, and they get an annual payment to do so, to use the poles. This is a good story on why we pay so much in the USA https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

FrankOne wrote:

Out of curiosity, how many ISP’s are available where you live?

Technically, three, but because my house is no longer wired for DSL, – one: Comcast. I used to have a 4G modem through some obscure company renting bandwidth from Sprint, but they went belly up two years ago, so I’m only left with cable. There is “US Internet” who offer fiber, but they stopped expanding two miles from my address with no plans to expand. CenturyLink (former Qwest) is the only competitor for Comcast, but you need to have a home phone for DSL to work. CenturyLink have fiber too, but they only cover 6% of my Zip code, according to broadbandnow.com

I almost want to go back to DSL just to get away from Comcast, but there’s no guarantees CenturyLink is not pulling similar shenanigans with their service as Comcast does. I’m f~~~ed. Need to set up a VPN, but have been procrastinating about it for several months now

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Silver FoxParticipant 2766]

Here’s an analogy that might help:

I’m against Terrorism. I’d like it if we could avoid another 9/11.

So the Government comes in and says, “We’ll protect you from Terrorism!” And then they pass a myriad of laws that are allegedly designed to protect us against Terrorism.

I’ll assume most of us have a negative opinion about Terrorism. How many of us also have a negative opinion, on, oh, say, the NSA eavesdropping on all our phones, computers, and electronics?

Here’s the lesson:

The Government ALWAYS promises things that seem to be good. The Government obviously doesn’t try to sell us poison with the word “Poison” marked on the bottle. The way they sell poison is to first change the label to “Ice Cream” and then sell it.

I’m in favor of having unlimited, fast internet without slowdowns or price gouging or censorship. But the way you achieve this is through open market competition without restriction. If big companies band together to screw over the consumer, guess what? A new smaller competitor will become phenomenally successful when they offer a better alternative. History has shown this innumerable times. It is only when the Government steps in and starts restricting and controlling the free market that we end up with consumers getting screwed over. The only reason large media corporations can get away with screwing over the consumer right now is because they have a multitude of lobbyists in Washington that push legislators to enact laws that protect the big companies and push aside all forms of competition. In other words, there is no free market in America today (nor has there been in many, many decades).

"Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." --Apostle Paul

[Golgotha777Participant 326]

I don’t know what is true anymore.

I will say that both government and corporations have the ability to f~~~ you. It’s the will of what the masses will tolerate that determines how things go.

Take the Affordable Care Act for instance. It didn’t make anything affordable for anyone I knew, so a lot of people boycotted it and paid the tax. Now it is in shambles.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

How to decipher names of bills:
If you hear about a “Longevity and Prosperity Act” – prepare to get robbed and killed.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[SolidParticipant 7520]

Russky wrote:

Net Neutrality – probably some kind of totalitarian control over Internet and its censorship

That is the point, soon you pass a law that let anyone censor as much as they want, they will.

[Author]

Posts